Share this story

New York has become the second state to enforce net neutrality with an executive order that prevents ISPs from obtaining state contracts unless they follow net neutrality principles.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the executive order yesterday, days after Montana Governor Steve Bullock did the same. The states are challenging the Federal Communications Commission, which repealed its own net neutrality rules and preempted states from imposing similar ones.

Further Reading

The executive orders attempt an end run around the FCC's preemption of local laws. Instead of directly requiring all ISPs to follow net neutrality principles, the executive orders require state agencies to only do business with ISPs that offer neutral networks.

"The FCC's dangerous ruling goes against the core values of our democracy, and New York will do everything in our power to protect net neutrality and the free exchange of ideas," Cuomo said in an announcement yesterday.

No charging extra for specific content

The order says state agencies and departments may not "enter into any contracts for Internet service unless the ISPs agree to adhere to net neutrality principles." ISPs would disqualify themselves from obtaining state contracts if they "block, throttle, or prioritize Internet content or applications or require that end users pay different or higher rates to access specific types of content or applications."

The New York order goes beyond Montana's by including the specific provision against charging users higher rates to access specific types of Internet content and applications.

Further Reading

States are using a few strategies to rebel against the FCC's elimination of net neutrality rules. There is net neutrality legislation pending in several states, and 22 attorneys general are suing the FCC in an attempt to reverse the net neutrality repeal.

In general, Democratic state officials are the ones challenging the FCC. Every US state with a Democratic attorney general is part of the lawsuit against the commission, but no Republican state attorneys general joined the effort.

The FCC decreed in its repeal its up to states to decide the issue for themselves they cannot in the same breath say you can't do anything we don't like since they opined for months that the FCC has no authority to regulate things.

Oh, what's that you say telecos? You don't want to have to deal with 50 different sets of state laws including some that will be strongly pro-neutrality? Gosh, if only you'd have thought of that before flooding the FCC with fake comments.

ISPs would disqualify themselves from obtaining state contracts if they "block, throttle, or prioritize Internet content or applications or require that end users pay different or higher rates to access specific types of content or applications."

The New York order goes beyond Montana's by including the specific provision against charging users higher rates to access specific types of Internet content and applications.

That doesn't prevent paid prioritization, in which case the end user has the option to pay different or higher rates to get the content at a higher speed but is not technically required to do so to access the content.

Also, on the enforcement side, didn't the FCC void the disclosure rules which would have required the ISPs to reveal their policies? I suspect there's room to slip a lot past here.

Umm...it says they can't prioritize. Not sure how it being paid would make it different.

Oh, what's that you say telecos? You don't want to have to deal with 50 different sets of state laws including some that will be strongly pro-neutrality? Gosh, if only you'd have thought of that before flooding the FCC with fake comments.

Oh the telcos love shooting themselves in the foot all the time and they have no desire to stop inflicting injuries on themselves.

Maybe in New York all the state government agencies are in places that have a choice for broadband. I picture Montana's as more of a "cable reps with cutouts in their shirts over their nipples" situation. "Oh, you don't want to contract with us? Sure, we'll miss you as you contract with... oh, that's right..."

Not like my state stands much of a chance of doing anything like this, though.

I want to see states use the takings clause on the ISP infrastructure if that scenario ever develops.

for one, they're not going to just give up the state money, particularly in a place like New York. And if these states are smart, they'll also block them from getting any subsidies or favorable treatment unless they adhere to NN. Also if enough states do this, it will just be cheaper and easier for them to adhere to NN principles in all those states anyway instead of dropping all their contracts.

Maybe in New York all the state government agencies are in places that have a choice for broadband. I picture Montana's as more of a "cable reps with cutouts in their shirts over their nipples" situation. "Oh, you don't want to contract with us? Sure, we'll miss you as you contract with... oh, that's right..."

Not like my state stands much of a chance of doing anything like this, though.

I want to see states use the takings clause on the ISP infrastructure if that scenario ever develops.

not likely however eminent domain on the otherhand.... nah LLU will never happen in the us not till 2070 at least, not with the glacial pace of government.

Maybe in New York all the state government agencies are in places that have a choice for broadband. I picture Montana's as more of a "cable reps with cutouts in their shirts over their nipples" situation. "Oh, you don't want to contract with us? Sure, we'll miss you as you contract with... oh, that's right..."

Not like my state stands much of a chance of doing anything like this, though.

You're forgetting government-related agencies like school districts. I'm guessing that giving up all government and related business would cost more than an ISP stands to make with prioritization or other anti-neutrality policies.

Number 2 is that if an ISP doesn't qualify for government contracts, that information will be public, and it will encourage New Yorkers to go with other providers.

Number 3 is that there is a bunch of excess government-owned and controlled fiber in NY, at least where I live. Local governments could provide service in competition, bypassing the ISPs altogether. NY isn't likely to outlaw municipal broadband, particularly if it's viewed as necessary to allow for a public good.

Lastly, there's wheeling and dealing. My local government gave the phone company the right to sell Wi-Fi in certain areas (the airport and other public buildings) in return for providing it free in other areas (city parks, busy pedestrian areas). Government could offer public access in return for neutrality, or similarly innovate ways to persuade ISPs to neutrality.

The FCC decreed in its repeal its up to states to decide the issue for themselves they cannot in the same breath say you can't do anything we don't like since they opined for months that the FCC has no authority to regulate things.

Tragically hypocrisy has never stopped the government, especially this edition of the FCC, before.

While I like what these states are doing, if they are solely focusing on the end user, they are missing the mark. It is also about peering agreements and throttling various service providers, like netflix as an example or startups - so as to drive business to their competing services.

The FCC decreed in its repeal its up to states to decide the issue for themselves they cannot in the same breath say you can't do anything we don't like since they opined for months that the FCC has no authority to regulate things.

As long as the state's actually pass legislation on the issue, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Trying to executive order our way to sustainable net regulation will end up the same way that trying to bastardize Title II did.

In this case I'm thinking that it will hold up as they're not requiring them to do anything if they don't want to. They can simply walk away from the contracts and continue to do business in the states.

Oh, what's that you say telecos? You don't want to have to deal with 50 different sets of state laws including some that will be strongly pro-neutrality? Gosh, if only you'd have thought of that before flooding the FCC with fake comments.

Meh, we all know that it's just become another reason to increase the price :-/

Oh, what's that you say telecos? You don't want to have to deal with 50 different sets of state laws including some that will be strongly pro-neutrality? Gosh, if only you'd have thought of that before flooding the FCC with fake comments.

Oh the telcos love shooting themselves in the foot all the time and they have no desire to stop inflicting injuries on themselves.

If only we could get in on it. "What's that Comcast? <bam> Stop hitting yourself! <snicker>"

ISPs would disqualify themselves from obtaining state contracts if they "block, throttle, or prioritize Internet content or applications or require that end users pay different or higher rates to access specific types of content or applications."

The New York order goes beyond Montana's by including the specific provision against charging users higher rates to access specific types of Internet content and applications.

That doesn't prevent paid prioritization, in which case the end user has the option to pay different or higher rates to get the content at a higher speed but is not technically required to do so to access the content.

Also, on the enforcement side, didn't the FCC void the disclosure rules which would have required the ISPs to reveal their policies? I suspect there's room to slip a lot past here.

Umm...it says they can't prioritize. Not sure how it being paid would make it different.

Hmm, I was wondering why people were downvoting me. It was because I was wrong! Thanks for noting what I overlooked.

"In general, Democratic state officials are the ones challenging the FCC. Every US state with a Democratic attorney general is part of the lawsuit against the commission, but no Republican state attorneys general joined the effort."

So in the short time Net Neutrality was in effect it had the desired outcome. The politicization of the internet.

Now it's just a matter of time before the Democrats say we need to put taxes on the internet to pay for the cost of making sure it's "neutral". Then internet providers can say we need to raise everyone's rates to comply with the regulators.

And millennials with no historical perspective think this will work out well for them. LOL.

This does not even come close to making sense or following any sort of logical progression.

"In general, Democratic state officials are the ones challenging the FCC. Every US state with a Democratic attorney general is part of the lawsuit against the commission, but no Republican state attorneys general joined the effort."

So in the short time Net Neutrality was in effect it had the desired outcome. The politicization of the internet.

Now it's just a matter of time before the Democrats say we need to put taxes on the internet to pay for the cost of making sure it's "neutral". Then internet providers can say we need to raise everyone's rates to comply with the regulators.

And millennials with no historical perspective think this will work out well for them. LOL.

This does not even come close to making sense or following any sort of logical progression.

It makes sense if you follow along in his posting history and realize that he's always been wrong and continues to do so.

The FCC decreed in its repeal its up to states to decide the issue for themselves they cannot in the same breath say you can't do anything we don't like since they opined for months that the FCC has no authority to regulate things.

As long as the state's actually pass legislation on the issue, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Trying to executive order our way to sustainable net regulation will end up the same way that trying to bastardize Title II did.

Just how is following court instructions bastardizing Title II? And while you're at it, please demonstrate the legislative route open to net neutrality laws at the Federal level.

It probably does not work this way, but is access to public right of way a contract with the state? ISPs would have a helluva time if they can no longer access the poles, or the land those poles are on.